This, ladies and gentlemen, is a phone book. Before there was Google, if you needed contact information, you got it from the phone book. If you have never had the pleasure of having one of these big boys delivered to your door, then you are...much younger than me because I definitely remember getting several of these every year.
I felt like I had to introduce this relic before I summarized this next case.
What Happened?
In Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc., Rural was a public utility company. Pursuant to a state law, Rural was required to produce an annual telephone directory for its users. The directory contained the names and contact information for its subscribers along with advertising.
Feist was a publishing company that specialized in producing regional telephone books. So, while Rural covered one telephone service area, Feist's book covered eleven phone service areas, including Rural's. To produce its book, Feist attempted to license the subscriber information from the companies handling each area. Feist was able to get licenses from ten of the companies but Rural refused to license its data. This was a problem because it would create a large hole in Feist's regional directory. So, Feist just ignored Rural's refusal and used the information anyway. In short order, Feist was sued by Rural for copyright infringement and the case made it all the way to the United States Supreme Court.
What Did the Court Decide?
The two courts that heard this case before the Supreme Court found in favor of Rural. Those courts determined that, since factual compilations are eligible for copyright protection, Rural's copyright was valid and infringed by Feist. But, the Supreme Court came to the opposite conclusion and determined that Rural's phone book was not protected by copyright at all. [1]
In reaching its conclusion, the Supreme Court emphasized the Constitutional requirement of originality. Facts, such as the names and addresses of residents, are not protectible by copyright because they lack originality. Facts "do not owe their origin to an act of authorship." Rural did not create the information or expend any intellectual labor to get it. The only thing that could be copyright eligible in this scenario was the compilation of the facts. Factual compilations generally enjoy copyright protection but only if there is originality in the selection and arrangement of the facts. Originality is "not a stringent standard; it does not require that facts be presented in an innovative or surprising way. It is equally true, however, that the selection and arrangement of facts cannot be so mechanical or routine as to require no creativity whatsoever." [2]
While the required amount of creativity is low, the Court determined that Rural had not even met that low bar as there is "nothing remotely creative" about arranging names alphabetically in phone book. Because there was no originality, there was no copyright protection. Because there was no copyright protection, Feist was free to copy the information.
The Takeaway for Crafters
Not everything you create is copyrighted. Spending a lot of time and energy on a project does not make it copyright eligible. There has to be originality in the work or it is not protectible. If it is not protectible, anyone can legally copy it.
[1] Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340, 347 (1991).
[2] Id. at 362.
Comments